1995 (7) TMI 153 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application for production of additional evidence.
2. Clubbing of clearances for exemption purposes.
3. Validity of the Collector's findings on manufacturing activities and power supply.
4. Credibility of evidence and statements.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Application for Production of Additional Evidence:
The appellants sought to introduce new documents that were available during the proceedings but were not presented. They claimed ignorance of the basis on which the Collector would form his opinion. The Tribunal, referencing the case of *Prakash Pipes & Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs* and other precedents, emphasized that additional evidence should not be allowed to fill gaps in the original case unless justified by exceptional circumstances. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for introducing new evidence at this stage and thus rejected the application.

2. Clubbing of Clearances for Exemption Purposes:
The appellants argued that the Collector inconsistently treated the clearances of M/s. Jayalakshmi Machine Works and M/s. National Machine Works. While the proceedings against Jayalakshmi Machine Works were dropped, those against National Machine Works were upheld. The Collector distinguished the two cases based on the lack of three-phase power connection and the non-operational status of National Machine Works' premises. The Tribunal upheld the Collector's decision, noting the specific circumstances and evidence that justified treating the clearances of National Machine Works as part of the appellants' clearances.

3. Validity of the Collector's Findings on Manufacturing Activities and Power Supply:
The Collector found that National Machine Works did not have the requisite three-phase power connection or sufficient machinery to manufacture the claimed products. The Tribunal agreed with the Collector's assessment that the evidence, including the Mahazar and statements from key personnel, indicated that National Machine Works could not have produced the sophisticated machinery. The Tribunal found the claims about diesel-powered generation and job work fabrication unconvincing and supported the Collector's conclusion that the appellants were the actual manufacturers.

4. Credibility of Evidence and Statements:
The appellants contended that the statements from Shri Venkatapathy and Smt. Indira were coerced. However, the Tribunal found no merit in this claim, emphasizing that the individuals were educated and unlikely to be forced into making false statements. The Tribunal supported the Collector's reliance on these statements, which corroborated the findings that the machinery was produced by the appellants and not by National Machine Works.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Collector's findings and confirmed the impugned order, rejecting the appeal. The detailed reasoning provided by the Collector on the various points raised by the appellants was upheld, including the determination that the machinery claimed to have been manufactured and sold by National Machine Works was actually produced by the appellants.